Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak briefly on the motion for the second reading of the Migration Amendment (Reinstatement of Temporary Protection Visas) Bill 2013, which I support. I do speak on these issues from the background of somebody who has taken a very considerable interest, over a long period of time, in the plight of refugees. In fact, if you go back and look at my earlier career, I was involved with the Khmer, the Afghans and the Romanians out of Europe. When I became minister, I was involved with the programs that bought Sudanese and others to Australia. I do not come to any debate about these discussions with any hostility to refugees.

I do have a commitment to running immigration programs with integrity. I think one of the problems that the government has at the moment is that people around Australia no longer believe that the programs are being conducted with integrity. I could have a long debate about what that means; but when you have lost control of your borders you find that the support for immigration and even the support for resettling refugees diminish. I think that is a great tragedy.

I am one who believes that we can target our resources most carefully, for those who are most in need, if we are able to manage our borders effectively. The member for Parramatta ran this argument that there is no queue. I have a mischievous sense of humour and I am sure my colleagues will understand when I say this: if the approach that we are taking now is that those people who have enough money to pay people smugglers get priority of place as refugees, because of the refugee convention, then I would suggest that the government ought to—in relation to the remaining places—go to refugee camps around the world and say, 'Who has got $10,000 to pay?' We could give it to those who have the money. I imagine you would look at me with horror and say, 'No government would do that.' Yet, at the moment, the people who get the priority are those who have the money to pay. They may be driven by what they think are their needs, but it is money that is the determining factor.

If you come to a view that it is better to have an orderly process in which you can make an objective assessment about who needs help the most then you have to address the issue of how you manage your borders. It is not easy; I have had to do it. But what I can say is that those who suggest that there is one miracle cure available do not understand the dynamics. I say, with great personal confidence, that we needed all of the measures that we put in place to be able to bring this trafficking to an end.

It is argued that the trafficking came to an end because the push factors were not as great. I tell you, the push factors were just as great from Afghanistan and Iraq when we were in government as they are now. The main determinant factors that have changed have been the pull factors. The Indonesians recognise it. You have Indonesian ministers and public officials saying, 'What have you done about the sugar?' Their willingness to cooperate and work with us, which is an important factor that we need, is determined by whether they think we have done everything that we can to deal with this issue—and they do not. They saw the unwinding of the policy in relation to TPVs as unwinding our willingness to address these issues.

TPVs are very simple: they give people the protection which they are guaranteed under the refugee convention, but the refugee convention says nothing about giving people permanent residency. Opposition members say—and I heard it again tonight—that, when we would take away TPVs and give people permanent residencies, no women and children would be getting on boats. Yet all the evidence is that women and children are still getting on boats even today. In my view, all of the measures that the Howard government pursued need to be implemented. TPVs are one of those and that is why I support the bill that is before the chamber.

See this speech in context